Search results

Purpose – In this chapter, I present a systematic discussion of the relationship between social work (SW) and library and information science (LIS) and explore how SW can contribute to the education of LIS practitioners so that they become more than information facilitators and grow professionally to be true agents of change.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Using engagement with immigrant communities as a case in point and building on the empirical comparative study of public librarians in the Greater Toronto Area and New York City, I outline the current gaps and deficiencies of LIS curricula that can be rectified through blended education. I also integrate the potential contributions of SW into LIS through the case study of an immigrant member of a library community.

Findings – Building on the case study, I introduce a four-tiered model that can be applied to a wide array of courses in LIS programs and conclude with suggestions for taking steps toward blending SW perspectives into the LIS curriculum.

Originality/Value – I position the potential fusion of SW and LIS as “professional blendedness,” which serves as a catalyst for change, and also examine the concept of the blended professional as a change agent. I introduce the rationale for adopting theoretical, practical, and pedagogical approaches from SW in the field of LIS and focus on four specific contributions that can most benefit LIS:

• the person-in-environment approach;

• the strengths perspective and empowerment;

• the interrelated notions of cultural competence, diversity, and intersectionality; and

• the theory-mindedness approach (including theory and practice models).

the person-in-environment approach;

the strengths perspective and empowerment;

the interrelated notions of cultural competence, diversity, and intersectionality; and

the theory-mindedness approach (including theory and practice models).

This article is a contribution to the development of a comprehensive interdisciplinary theory of LIS in the hope of giving a more precise evaluation of its current problems. The article describes an interdisciplinary framework for lis, especially information retrieval (IR), in a way that goes beyond the cognitivist ‘information processing paradigm’. The main problem of this paradigm is that its concept of information and language does not deal in a systematic way with how social and cultural dynamics set the contexts that determine the meaning of those signs and words that are the basic tools for the organisation and retrieving of documents in LIS. The paradigm does not distinguish clearly enough between how the computer manipulates signs and how librarians work with meaning in practice when they design and run document mediating systems. The ‘cognitive viewpoint’ of Ingwersen and Belkin makes clear that information is not objective, but rather only potential, until it is interpreted by an individual mind with its own internal mental world view and purposes. It facilitates further study of the social pragmatic conditions for the interpretation of concepts. This approach is not yet fully developed. The domain analytic paradigm of Hjørland and Albrechtsen is a conceptual realisation of an important aspect of this area. In the present paper we make a further development of a non‐reductionistic and interdisciplinary view of information and human social communication by texts in the light of second‐order cybernetics, where information is seen as ‘a difference which makes a difference’ for a living autopoietic (self‐organised, self‐creating) system. Other key ideas are from the semiotics of Peirce and also Warner. This is the understanding of signs as a triadic relation between an object, a representation and an interpretant. Information is the interpretation of signs by living, feeling, self‐organising, biological, psychological and social systems. Signification is created and con‐trolled in a cybernetic way within social systems and is communicated through what Luhmann calls generalised media, such as science and art. The modern socio‐linguistic concept ‘discourse communities’ and Wittgenstein's ‘language game’ concept give a further pragmatic description of the self‐organising system's dynamic that determines the meaning of words in a social context. As Blair and Liebenau and Backhouse point out in their work it is these semantic fields of signification that are the true pragmatic tools of knowledge organ‐isation and document retrieval. Methodologically they are the first systems to be analysed when designing document mediating systems as they set the context for the meaning of concepts. Several practical and analytical methods from linguistics and the sociology of knowledge can be used in combination with standard methodology to reveal the significant language games behind document mediation.

A discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint in library and information science identifies seven discursive strategies which constitute information as a commodity, and persons as surveyable information consumers, within market economy conditions. These strategies are: (a) universality of theory, (b) referentiality and reification of ‘images’, (c) internalisation of representations, (d) radical individualism and erasure of the social dimension of theory, (e) insistence upon knowledge, (f) constitution of the information scientist as an expert in image negotiation, and (g) instrumental reason, ruled by efficiency, standardisation, predictability, and determination of effects. The discourse is guided throughout by a yearning for natural‐scientific theory. The effect of the cognitive viewpoint's discursive strategy is to enable knowledge acquisition of information processes only when users' and generators' ‘images’ are constituted as objectively given natural‐scientific entities, and to disable knowledge of the same processes when considered as products of social practices. By its constitution of users as free creators of images, of the information scientist as an expert in image interpretation and delivery, and of databases as repositories of unmediated models of the world, the cognitive viewpoint performs ideological labour for modern capitalist image markets.

To ascertain the diffusion and influence of Savolainen's ELIS model and its use as a theoretical and/or methodological basis for research.

A context citation analysis was made of the work where this researcher published his model. Analysis covered the year of publication, the type of work and the subject matter of the citing documents concerned. In-context citations were analysed for their frequency in each citing text, style, location and content cited.

The ELIS model received 18.5 cites/year. 20.2 per cent of them corresponded to papers published in journals in other areas, mainly computer science. The average of cites per paper was 1.8; 64.5 percent of the citing works cited them only once. 60 per cent of the cites were considered essential. Only 13.7 per cent of these cites appear in theory or methods. 37 per cent of the citing documents contained no concept relating to the model.

The method used focuses on the most direct context of a cite (sentence or paragraph), but isolates it from the general context (full document, other documents by the author or their social capital). It has, however, allowed this research issue to be dealt with under laboratory conditions and revealed nuances hidden by the absolute number of cites.

It has become evident that the dissemination and influence of the ELIS model are less than what the total number of cites indicates and that it has scarcely been incorporated into research design. Despite its popularity, it is not being validated and/or refuted by way of empirical data.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the current situation of academic LIS research, specifically in the UK and to provide some thoughts considering the future of the discipline. According to the opinion of the authors, this situation is characterised by a lack of cohesion, the need for justification of academic research in terms of its immediate applicability to the professional education of practitioners, and a disjuncture between the information profession and information research. The paper attempts to offer introductory thoughts regarding these circumstances.

The current situation is briefly reviewed and commented on from the authors’ viewpoint. Aspects of Pierre Bourdieu's study of the university as a hierarchically structured field of forces are considered. Some reference is made to previous literature.

The paper advances the view that the role of academic LIS research, debate and theory formation needs to be strengthened and that this needs to be reflected in the curriculum more strongly.

The paper attempts to highlight consistently overlooked contributing factors, and thus aims to shift the perspective towards role and position of LIS research within academia, rather than vis‐à‐vis the professional education it is connected to. It aims to stimulate discussion of the current situation, of how it can be perceived, and of ways to address it.

The current debate between two theoretical approaches in library and information science and knowledge organization (KO), the cognitive one and the sociological one, is addressed in view of their possible integration in a more general model. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Personal knowledge of individual users, as focused in the cognitive approach, and social production and use of knowledge, as focused in the sociological approach, are reconnected to the theory of levels of reality, particularly in the versions of Nicolai Hartmann and Karl R. Popper (three worlds). The notions of artefact and mentefact, as proposed in anthropological literature and applied in some KO systems, are also examined as further contributions to the generalized framework. Some criticisms to these models are reviewed and discussed.

Both the cognitive approach and the sociological approach, if taken in isolation, prove to be cases of philosophical monism as they emphasize a single level over the others. On the other hand, each of them can be considered as a component of a pluralist ontology and epistemology, where individual minds and social communities are but two successive levels in knowledge production and use, and are followed by a further level of “objectivated spirit”; this can in turn be analyzed into artefacts and mentefacts. While all these levels are relevant to information science, mentefacts and their properties are its most peculiar objects of study, which make it distinct from such other disciplines as psychology and sociology.

This analysis shows how existing approaches can benefit from additional notions contributed by levels theory, to develop more complete and accurate models of information and knowledge phenomena.

The purpose of this paper is to redefine information and other associated library and information science (LIS) concepts and to reformulate the mission of the library and information profession and the problem of LIS using these concepts.

This study adopts a deductive approach to conceptualization, starting from one given, a priori concept.

This paper develops a constellation of concepts which offer mutual clarification for each other. Having defined data by drawing on its existing denotations, it defines “information” as the combined product of data and meaning, and “document” as the combined product of information and media; it defines “knowledge” as one type of meaning and “work” as one type of information. It shows that the mission of the library and information profession is to ensure maximum discoverability and accessibility of information, and that LIS is structured into two fields correspondingly, each consisting of three tiers of knowledge: philosophical foundations, theories, and technologies.

The redefinition of basic LIS concepts may have practical implications for LIS curriculum design and for the cultivation of professional identity among LIS students in the all-encompassing I-Schools.

This study has formed a coherent conceptual framework for LIS and has clarified the hitherto rather confusing relationship between data, information, and knowledge, and the rather nebulous structure of LIS problems; it sheds some light on the source of conflicts between the subjective and objective conceptualization of information and questions the prevailing understanding of work as ideas or meanings.

The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS).

The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward.

It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the “sociological view” are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality.

The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

Discourses on critical librarianship have been mainly theoretical. However, discourses with a practical application of Critical Theory in librarianship, critical librarianship, or library management and operations are limited. Yet, librarianship underscores efficiency and practicality in service provision with the dominant ideology in librarianship being practicality. Based on Critical Theory and emerging power dynamics in e-services, this chapter presents a discussion on the practical application of Critical Theory in academic libraries. The Web 2.0 technologies have triggered a shift in information seeking and use by empowering the academic library users to seek and use information from nontraditional sources. This shift in information seeking behavior and the resultant power dynamics has an impact on strengthening of the academic library as a public sphere; a public virtual space where people can meet and exchange ideas with the eventual outcome of democratization of knowledge. This chapter analyses the practical implications of power dynamics in academic libraries and the need for realignment of academic library functions to key Critical Success Factors (CSFs) including the role of library management, a focus on librarian power, a focus on user empowerment, creating awareness of the Web 2.0 services, and maximizing the use of Web 2.0 technologies. A proper realignment of the shifting power is necessary and must be pursued as a deliberate strategy by academic libraries to facilitate generation and sharing of information. It concludes by presenting the practical implications of power dynamics in academic libraries and recommendations on dealing with the emerging paradigm shifts.